[Liquid] Well, I just rolled the dice for show
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hi Callan,
I have a feeling we are not communicating well. I’m not talking about immediate consensus. Agreeing on something can happen at once or it can be arrived at.
The situation which I referred to as “neglecting the SIS” (I apologize if you feel offended by the term, I couldn’t come up with a better one) is a situation where agreement on the content and meaning of the SIS is not only momentarily absent, but no longer even strived for. Where no one even thinks about what the actual situational details are. And then if something is needed it’s just put in there by the one who happens to have the “narration right” and no one even gives a thought to where it comes from.
Concerning your last remark, I am part of the group, of course.
- Frank
Valamir:
Frank, let me see if I'm following this correctly.
There are some games that give definitive rules on where-the-buck-stops, who-has-the-ball, however-we-want-to-phrase-it; and other games that don't.
1) Games that have such rules allow play to progress mechanically forward with the rules sytem being being engaged to resolve stuff in the fiction, even when all of the players are not completely engaged with that fiction. They permit people to introduce elements into the SIS, because they have the authority to do so, even if those elements don't stem naturally or causally from previously established fiction (or reasonable conjecture about the fiction).
2) Games that don't have such rules don't allow play to progress mechanically forward in this way, because since no one has the authority to just introduce smoothing elements into the SIS, the group as a whole has to remain engaged with and fully utilizing the SIS or the game just mechanically...stops. Thus, when the game is functioning, all players are engaged with the SIS in a way you find very enjoyable.
Is that the distinction you're drawing?
If so its one I completely understand, but I'm a bit nervous that definitive procedural rules might be being held to blame for what is essentially just lax / sloppy / poor play.
In #1 type games the definitive procedures allow the games to progress even when the player's aren't engaged and playing well, which I consider to be a feature, not a bug. In contrast #2 type games just tend to crash and burn when player's aren't engaged and playing well.
What I'm seeing is a description of some #2 type play where everyone was playing well being compared to some #1 type play where the group was being a bit lazy (or perhaps just overexcited by The New and plunging forward too eagerly). Of course the former is going to deliver a better more fulfilling time than the latter.
I think a truer comparison would be some #2 type play experience you had where everyone was NOT playing well. and whether that experience was still better than the lackluster #1 type play experience.
I suspect what you'll find is that both types of play bring the awesome when people are all firing together, but when the people are not all firing together, #1 type play at least works and provides entertainment (even if not the best time ever) while #2 type play produces much less enjoyable "bad" experiences. i.e. Less than great #1 type play will generally be more fun then less than great #2 type play, although both will be less enjoyable than great play of either type.
Am I in the ball park?
Callan S.:
I think, and I may be wrong, Frank might see that crashing and burning in #2 as a feature and not a bug, as well. Either your fully engaging and investing in the SIS, or your not playing at all (crashed and burned) - no inbetween. The SIS only ever gets high levels of engagement and investment - it never gets lacklustre levels. It's a feature that it only gets high levels, or play isn't happening at all. This is, as said, a heavy priority on the SIS, perhaps like an artist might heavily prioritize the creation of their artwork over all other things at that time - either that, or they stop creating completely. The art never compromises for anything else.
Or am I way off, Frank? Hope I'm near the target, anyway!
For my own preferences, I'm strongly inclined towards Ralph's #1. Though I wouldn't call it sloppy, poor or lazy to not invest on the SIS. Despite how much causality and 'Of course X would happen!', in all the AP accounts I've seen how the SIS grows is hardly a scientific progression. It's always artistic - an act of artistic creation, no matter how much someone asserts 'Of course X event would happen next!' as if it were a scientific principle (and I would quickly compare this assertion to 'Of course my character X does so and so next!' - which is also clearly an artistic expression on the speakers part, no matter how certain they are the character would do that).
If someone isn't inclined to make an artistic expression, either in general, or at the current moment, I wouldn't call that poor or sloppy. They're just not inclined towards doing art. For the person who doesn't care to at the moment, the clear procedures are great, because there's nothing worse (in my mind) than "Be creative right now!". Maybe latter on they will spark up, and that's great! And for the person who doesn't care about doing art in general, well, their just not interested in the artistic endevour. It's a bit sad, but that's people! And probably roleplay is more vulnerable to this since with music bands, the guys have practiced using musical instruments before being invited into the band. So clearly they are interested in musical art (even if their crap at it, they are interested in artistic expression, which is the main thing). With roleplay you might invite someone and find they have no interest in using an artistic 'instrument', only once play has commenced. A bit like inviting someone into a band and then they just stand there, arms folded, not touching an instrument in front of them. To be honest I think calling it poor or sloppy might be a hold over from playing in #2 games, since I'd also say most traditional RPG's, especially early D&D, were procedurally (ie, the lack of it) squarely in #2 territory. And we all played them, alot. But that's alot of conjecture and assertion on my part :)
Frank Tarcikowski:
Ralph, you’ve paraphrased my point correctly. I fully agree with you that comparing poor play of one fashion with awesome play of another is a bad habit. It happens in many a discussion about many a play style and it leads to no good.
Let me start by stressing that I’m not saying that your #1 inevitably leads to people neglecting the SIS. My point is more that especially when playing a game that has your #1 type procedures, players should remind themselves of paying attention to the SIS because in my experience it’s quite easy to get carried away with progressing the plot, the conflicts, character development etc. It is tempting to no longer bother with situational details once you get really excited about the larger plot arc.
On the other hand, while your #2 type procedures are no prerequisite for maintaining a firm grasp on situational SIS details, I wanted to point out how they do facilitate it, something that I believe may sometimes be overlooked.
Recently, I have played some very good sessions of The Pool, which falls in your #1 category, in which the SIS was extraordinarily detailed and dense, description and acting was very strong, and the experience was as intense as role-playing of any kind has ever got for me (some would have called it immersion). So I fully realize that there is no contradiction here. It’s just a lesson that I’ve learned in playing PtA and some other such games the “blurry” way, that personally I need a strong image of what’s going on in the SIS, moment-to-moment, to thouroughly enjoy play.
Therefore, I don’t really see it as a merit if a game is able to continue even though the SIS is all blurry and agreement is lacking. That’s like, I dunno, putting a ton of reverb on a bad singer’s voice. Sure, it sounds better than without, but I’d rather he just stop.
Callan, I’ll have to ponder that last paragraph of yours.
- Frank
Valamir:
Cool.
So you'd rather the game just come to a (potentially rocky) end, rather than continue on luke warm.
Interesting. I've always been an "even bad sex is pretty good and better than no sex" kind of guy myself.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page